Right, because it is irrelevant. My perspective on those topics are not relevant to the facts, such as they are, about the mechanics of a constitutional convention, how they are began, what can be done with one, and the power structure of the parties which would be involved. My opinion on, say Madison, has no bearing on the fact that the States petition Congress to form a constitutional convention, that as such they get to decide the time and initial number as well as qualifications for delegates, and that once it starts all bets are off as to what can be done. Nor does my opinion or perspective on the current constitution have any bearing on the facts of which party controls the majority of state governments.
Bill, I’ll start this by saying you seem to want a set of rules that structure the world.
Rogue 4 Gay
2

I have to highlight this twice, due entirely to your response.

Right, because it is irrelevant. My perspective on those topics are not relevant to the facts, such as they are, about the mechanics of a constitutional convention, how they are began, what can be done with one, and the power structure of the parties which would be involved. My opinion on, say Madison, has no bearing on the fact that the States petition Congress to form a constitutional convention, that as such they get to decide the time and initial number as well as qualifications for delegates, and that once it starts all bets are off as to what can be done. Nor does my opinion or perspective on the current constitution have any bearing on the facts of which party controls the majority of state governments.

Your response is as follows:

I don’t see a question here. Seems like nothing but declaration.

Maybe because it is not a question but a response to a question you asked. You seem to think that you’re clever. You’d like people to believe that his response, what you called a declaration, was really somehow supposed to be a question to you rather than an answer to a question from you, shows just how devious, unscrupulous and disingenuous you are when backed into a corner.

The imperious urge to be seen as right, even when you haven’t the foundational basis to further your claim of righteousness, means that you’ve now had to stoop to unconscionable means to distort and misrepresent the opposing argument as your only means of salvation. When you have to willfully ignore or misread other perspectives, it shows that you aren’t interested in an honest discussion, much less debate.

You’re clearly a smart person, but your unwillingness to honestly appraise or appreciate other opinions, means that you are unteachable, unwilling to learn and a know-it-all. I don’t know how old you are, but I do know that you’re never too old to learn something new, unless being right is more important than being intellectually honest. What you’ve done above is as dishonest as it is small minded, so perhaps you’re not such a smart person after all. Certainly not as smart as you think you are. Duplicitous yes; smart, not so much. Honest not at all.

Bill Anderson Kady M.

Like what you read? Give arthur lecuyer a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.